MLB Extra Innings

[macuser2]

My initial install date was pushed back by one day. On the original day, there was a "winter mix". The installer showed up when scheduled, and finshed in about an hoir and a half. This was an install of the high def DVR box. The installer mentioned that those boxes had been hard to get; according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the shortage is especially acute in certain regions. So there is a regional thing here.

 

But I have had horrible problems with local Cablesvision, which became Time warner that was also horrible. That became Comcast which is ghastly.

So if Direct TV turns out to be horrible as well, I will just cancel it all, start reading more, and be relying on streaming broadcasts/satellite radio for baseball.

[Laura]

I think I'll wait for a more official announcement. "Some guy" on XM Radio who may or may not know what he's talking about isn't going to cut it for me. No offense, Laura. :wink:

 

None taken. But I wouldn't hold my breath for an official announcement entitled "How We Screwed Up MLB EI."

[BigbadB]

I think I'll wait for a more official announcement. "Some guy" on XM Radio who may or may not know what he's talking about isn't going to cut it for me. No offense, Laura. :wink:

 

None taken. But I wouldn't hold my breath for an official announcement entitled "How We Screwed Up MLB EI."

 

What?

[Ivy Walls]

I work in the market of sports execs and I was told that Direct TV is done but MLB.TV on the web will be enhanced.

 

I had it last year, for us it was better since I got live and archived games. Sorry about satellite and cable viewers....

[Derwood]

I don't really see how people can claim this is a monopoly issue. Yes, DirecTV is the only place to get EI, but it's not at the expense of the games you normally would be able to see on your local system. THey aren't pulling games off of WGN, FoxSPorts or Comcast Sports and putting them on EI.

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

[goonys evil twin]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

 

What's EI?

[goonys evil twin]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

 

What's EI?

 

Extra Innings, the baseball package formerly offered to most every cable/satellite customer that wanted to pay extra for "every" game.

[BigbadB]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

 

What's EI?

 

Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

[kujay]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

 

I have to agree with Derwood on this. It's not a monopoly.

 

Are retail clothing stores not allowed to negotiated exclusive deals to sell merchandise, such as K-Mart's (former?) deal with Martha Stewart.

 

It sucks, but that doesn't make it illegal.

[BigbadB]

It sucks that you could only buy Martha Stewart clothes at K-Mart? :shock: Edited January 30, 2007 by BigbadB

[goonys evil twin]

 

In other words, if your TV provider doesn't carry EI, you're in no worse shape than you would be if EI didn't exist.

 

But EI does exist, and it's existed on cable for years.

 

I really don't understand how you can't comprehend this. When Sunday Ticket started it was directv exclusive and it made sense that directv got to negotiate exclusive rights for the longterm. EI started with all sorts of outlets, and would be cutting back. Whenever you reduce consumer options that already exist, you are treading on dangerous waters.

 

I have to agree with Derwood on this. It's not a monopoly.

 

Are retail clothing stores not allowed to negotiated exclusive deals to sell merchandise, such as K-Mart's (former?) deal with Martha Stewart.

 

It sucks, but that doesn't make it illegal.

 

That's because there are several similar options for clothing elsewhere. The anti-trust exemption is being abused, and will be looked at by congress.

[kujay]

^If Congress does get their shorts in a knot over this, rest assured it will be because of cable company lobbying, not out of respect for fan outcry.

 

Because there won't be that much.

[CuseCubFan69]

^If Congress does get their shorts in a knot over this, rest assured it will be because of cable company lobbying, not out of respect for fan outcry.

 

Because there won't be that much.

 

Are you sure because I think the Direct TV guy takes steroids to be able to climb on the roof of a house next store to put the dish up. He got up there way too easily without a ladder.

[Derwood]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

[rocket]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

[CubColtPacer]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

 

Or like when games were shown on different channels, but then one channel bought the rights to show all the games of a particular sport? If this is a violation, then there are things all over the place that are a violation.

[Derwood]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

 

but that's NOT what is going on. If EI was the ONLY way to see ANY baseball, then fine, you have a right to gripe. But the truth is, WGN will still show its games, Comcast will still show its games, etc. DirecTV is not shutting everyone out of watching baseball

[BigbadB]

MLB EI allowed viewers of whatever cable/satellite provider the opportunity to view local programming that you cannot get out of market.

 

I specifically signed up for MLB EI to see all the Cub games. That there are other out of market games available, I generally watched a lot of those games, too.

 

This opportunity is being taken away from me, UNLESS I want to switch to the only company that now provides it. I shouldn't have to do that.

 

This is the 21st century. Communications should be taking a step forward, not a step back. This is a huge step back.

 

Why anyone would think this is a good thing really concerns me.

 

The biggest concern should be for those people who cannot get DirecTV at all. The same could be said if the shoe was on the other foot and you cannot get cable in your area.

 

The "I only care about me and no one else" attitude is really scary, IMO.

[CubColtPacer]

MLB EI allowed viewers of whatever cable/satellite provider the opportunity to view local programming that you cannot get out of market.

 

I specifically signed up for MLB EI to see all the Cub games. That there are other out of market games available, I generally watched a lot of those games, too.

 

This opportunity is being taken away from me, UNLESS I want to switch to the only company that now provides it. I shouldn't have to do that.

 

This is the 21st century. Communications should be taking a step forward, not a step back. This is a huge step back.

 

Why anyone would think this is a good thing really concerns me.

 

The biggest concern should be for those people who cannot get DirecTV at all. The same could be said if the shoe was on the other foot and you cannot get cable in your area.

 

The "I only care about me and no one else" attitude is really scary, IMO.

 

I think it's a step back, but it's hard to change in our free market economy. Truthfully, we limit access to things every day in all sorts of things in the name of business, and it's just something that has to be lived with unless Americans want government to have a great deal more of regulation into the business world.

[kujay]

I don't mean to say I think this is a good thing. It sucks really bad. I'm not switching to Directv for this, so MLB.tv will have to suffice.

 

But it's not illegal just because we don't like it. That's all I'm saying.

[MikeG]

... I guess i'll be watching alot of MLB.TV on my Wii browser this season. :(

[rocket]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

 

but that's NOT what is going on. If EI was the ONLY way to see ANY baseball, then fine, you have a right to gripe. But the truth is, WGN will still show its games, Comcast will still show its games, etc. DirecTV is not shutting everyone out of watching baseball

 

directTV is shutting out cable subscribers who wanted to watch out of market games. they have only one source to watch out of market games on their tv. how can people defend this?

[Derwood]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

 

but that's NOT what is going on. If EI was the ONLY way to see ANY baseball, then fine, you have a right to gripe. But the truth is, WGN will still show its games, Comcast will still show its games, etc. DirecTV is not shutting everyone out of watching baseball

 

directTV is shutting out cable subscribers who wanted to watch out of market games. they have only one source to watch out of market games on their tv. how can people defend this?

 

I'm not defending it like it's good, but you don't have any legal "rights" to watch out of market games on your TV. It's a premium service that has chosen to be exclusively with one company. Sorry that upsets you, but there's nothing illegal about it

[CubColtPacer]

Again, Extra Innings is not the only way to see baseball, thus it's not "exclusive". Congress isn't going to do anything about people griping that a premium subscription service is no available only on one system.

 

This would be like saying "I really love AOL's email program and am pissed that I can't get it anywhere else"

 

no. it'd be similar if every online provider had an email program, then aol one day bought exclusive rights to email, and everyone else was shutout.

 

this isn't a difficult concept.

 

but that's NOT what is going on. If EI was the ONLY way to see ANY baseball, then fine, you have a right to gripe. But the truth is, WGN will still show its games, Comcast will still show its games, etc. DirecTV is not shutting everyone out of watching baseball

 

directTV is shutting out cable subscribers who wanted to watch out of market games. they have only one source to watch out of market games on their tv. how can people defend this?

 

It can be defended because people are saying it's illegal to buy exclusive rights to any product, and it's not. It would become illegal if cable companies wanted to buy it and couldn't no matter what-but that's not happening here. Cable companies are simply not willing to pay the money to be able to get it only for themselves, and DirectTV is willing to pay the premium for exlusivity. That's no different then CBS paying the NFL billions of dollars to be able to exclusively show AFC games on Sundary afternoons-another station could have got it, but CBS was willing to pay more.